On Wednesday, January 12, 2022, 09:55:21 PM EST, Leila Zia <lzia@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hi all,
We gave the option of accepting nominations in more languages some
more thought. I want to be very honest: I don't have a good solution
to accommodate more languages in this cycle. We considered the option
of allowing/encouraging nominations in other languages, and not doing
the broader search we do in English in those languages. However, even
this option is not really guaranteed to work because we consider
"scholarly publications" which can be papers of a few pages or books
that can be hundreds of pages. We cannot guarantee that we can
translate the scholarly publication (independent of its length)
in-time for the review.
Given the above, my suggestion to you is that if you know of a
scholarly publication that is in another language than English and you
think we should consider it, still nominate it. We will consider it,
even if I can't guarantee that we review it.
I'm sorry that I am not able to offer a better solution for this
cycle. We will continue thinking about this point for the future
cycles.
Best,
Leila
On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 12:46 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
>
> Hi Leila,
> I have read it, that's why I'm confused.
> ________________________________
> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 9:40 PM
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: [Wiki-research-l] Re: The Wikimedia Foundation Research Award of the Year - Call for Nominations
>
> Hi Galder,
>
> Please see below.
>
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 12:26 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
> >
> > Thanks, Leila, for answering the question raised.
>
> Anytime.
>
> > I'm a bit confused with this, I supposed that the Wikimedia Foundation Research Award was an initiative from the Research team of the WMF (
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research), but I read in your answer that "WikiResearch is primarily in English and about research published in English". I understand that the main working language of the WMF is English, as this mailing list is, but I would assume that an Award promoted by the WMF should be multilingual.
>
> Sorry. Let me clarify. What I was referring to when I used
> WikiResearch in my email was the WikiResearch twitter account:
> WMF Research team or Wikimedia Research community. And to repeat: this
> is one source we use to find research done on the Wikimedia projects.
> There are other sources as I mentioned in my response.
>
> > Me, as a Basque Wikimedians User Group member, I promote Wikimedia activities in Basque language, because that is our goal. But the WMF is not the English Wikimedians User Group, as far as I understand. Our designated lingua franca may be English, but the WMF can't exclude research that is not made in this language from an Award. I would understand if the (non-existing) English Wikimedians User Group created the "EWUG Research in English Award of the Year", but is not the case.
>
> I understand and acknowledge your point about inclusion. I hope some
> of the points I shared about our existing process in my other email
> can help you find possible solutions we can consider doing. :) On my
> end: I have a todo to come back to you all.
>
> Best,
> Leila
>
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Galder
> >
> > ________________________________
> > Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:04 PM
> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: [Wiki-research-l] Re: The Wikimedia Foundation Research Award of the Year - Call for Nominations
> >
> > Hi all, Thank you for your feedback. I take your comments as a sign of
> > genuine care and I'm happy to engage and learn with you how we can do
> > better. (Note: I'm responding to all lists, though some of the
> > feedback has been sent only to wikimedia-l.)
> >
> > * Galder, Gereon, Xavier, Gnangarra, and Andy: thank you for your feedback.
> >
> > * Andy, I'll respond to your comment first. We do not require the work
> > to be published under a free license for us to consider it for the
> > award. However, if the work is shortlisted, we reach out to the
> > authors, tell them that it's shortlisted, and it can be considered for
> > the award if the work is at least made publicly available. At that
> > point, we also encourage the authors to publish under a free license
> > and share with them a few ways they may be able to (even if the work
> > is published somewhere already with restrictions). The issue of
> > licenses is on top of our mind and we actively look for ways to push
> > for more Wikimedia research work to be published under free licenses.
> >
> > * I am going to share with you some of my thoughts, and a possible
> > improvement we can make in the process.
> >
> > ** Let's try to keep things simple to be able to improve things
> > together. This is not a case of "WMF did x". The idea of the award was
> > created in the Research team, and both last year and this year, we've
> > been grateful to have the support of researchers outside of WMF for
> > it. (Aaron Shaw (Northwestern University), and Benjamin Mako Hill (U.
> > of Washington)). I take full responsibility for the execution of the
> > award and I can take your feedback and see where we can improve the
> > process. :)
> >
> > ** In order to be able to improve the process, I should share more
> > details about how we do the search for the publications first. We have
> > multiple sources for searching for research published in a given year:
> > 1. The nomination process we shared on this thread.
> > 2. Research publications shared in WikiResearch twitter account.
> > 3. External research search engines and repositories for different
> > fields: we use scholar.google.com, dblp.org and more.
> >
> > To give you a sense of the distribution of scholarly publications we
> > identified last year from each of the above sources: 11 nominations
> > and 170+ research publications through the twitter account and
> > external searches. The award chairs (2 people; this year it is going
> > to be Mako and I) reviewed all identified publications. We discussed
> > every publication at varying depth depending on the result of our
> > initial reviews.
> >
> > ** Knowing the process, there are at least a few ways I think the
> > process must be improved. I'm sure now that you see more you can
> > critique even more. :) I proactively share with you some of them here:
> > ::* I need to have an easychair account to nominate. That can/must
> > change (but to what? we want these nominations to be private, and we
> > need a way to be able to process them efficiently because we're only 2
> > people. We are considering openreview.net for the future years because
> > they're open source; but they still have other limitations. For this
> > year, easychair it is.).
> > ::* We need more people on the committee: both for workload sharing,
> > and also including more perspectives. (This is /a lot/ to ask of
> > researchers. I'm grateful that Mako and Aaron have supported us in the
> > past.)
> > ::* We need other non-English sources to source community research.
> > (WikiResearch is primarily in English and about research published in
> > English.)
> > ::* The shared language of reviewers is assumed to be English. If we
> > are going to at scale consider other languages, then we need a way
> > that this group of people can converse on academic topics with one
> > another without having to share a language.
> >
> > ** I also understand the reality of the resources available to me and
> > our team. I understand the importance of working on multiple fronts
> > with regards to the research community (Wikimedia Research Funds, Wiki
> > Workshop, global research competitions, research showcases, monthly
> > office hours, talks and presentations, formal collaborations, and
> > more). I believe in the importance of motivation (and we have seen a
> > very good momentum around the award idea from last year's run). We
> > need to do many things, with very limited resources; Our values and
> > ideals are important and we have to attempt to hold them all as we
> > make decisions. In practice, sometimes we can't meet all the ambitions
> > we have. We need to make trade-offs. What is important is to be aware,
> > to listen, to try to improve, and to be honest.
> >
> > I will leave you with the above and I commit to talk with Mako to
> > consider ways to open up the process for more languages to be included
> > (in 2021 or in 2022+; I can't promise changes for the 2021 process.).
> > One of us will write back here with what we decide to do.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Leila
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > =Eligibility criteria=
> > >
> > > > * The publication must be available in English.
> > >
> > > I echo others' concerns about this.
> > >
> > > I'm equally concerned that, while WMF regard being in English as
> > > essential for one of their awards, they do not regard the use of an
> > > open licence as a requirement.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Andy Mabbett
> > > @pigsonthewing
> > > _______________________________________________
> > _______________________________________________
> > _______________________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> _______________________________________________
_______________________________________________